Re: Requirement document last call (let's focus!)

[Vijay Gill <vijay@umbc.edu>]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Eliot Lear wrote:

> At 02:59 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, Vijay Gill wrote:
> > > >    For example, suppose site E obtains transit from transit providers T1
> > > >    and T2, and there is long-term congestion between T1 and T2.  The
> > > >    multihoming architecture MUST allow E to ensure that in normal
> > > >    operation none of its traffic is carried over the congested
> > > >    interconnection T1-T2.  The process by which this is achieved MAY be
> > > >    a manual one.

> > > Why are we adding the caveat of the last sentence?  Manual
> > > anything is bad.

> In today's world, if both sides announce an aggregation and not a specific
> route for E, this will happen.  But if the problem is congestion, that is
> solved with more bandwidth and or less customers (i.e., letting the market
> decide).  Why does this need to be written into a requirements document?

This doesn't need to be in a requirements document, but the option for
E to manually decide what links to dump traffic over should not be
precluded. There are many games being played in networks that I'm
operating right now that rely on some of these sort of tricks.

> Or maybe I misunderstand the point you are making.  What are you thinking
> of that needs to be manual?  Is it the coordinated injection of a specific
> during congestion?

See above. I hope I'm not misunderstanding something here.

/vijay